Validation of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology scoring system for prostate cancer diagnosis on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in a cohort of repeat biopsy patients

Comparing Three Different Techniques for Magnetic Resonance Imaging-targeted Prostate Biopsies: A Systematic Review of In-bore versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound fusion versus Cognitive Registration. Is There a Preferred Technique?

CONTEXT

The introduction of magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsies (MRI-GB) has changed the paradigm concerning prostate biopsies. Three techniques of MRI-GB are available: (1) in-bore MRI target biopsy (MRI-TB), (2) MRI-transrectal ultrasound fusion (FUS-TB), and (3) cognitive registration (COG-TB).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether MRI-GB has increased detection rates of (clinically significant) prostate cancer (PCa) compared with transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB) in patients at risk for PCa, and which technique of MRI-GB has the highest detection rate of (clinically significant) PCa.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We performed a literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. Studies were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 checklist and START recommendations. The initial search identified 2562 studies and 43 were included in the meta-analysis.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Among the included studies 11 used MRI-TB, 17 used FUS-TB, 11 used COG-TB, and four used a combination of techniques. In 34 studies concurrent TRUS-GB was performed. There was no significant difference between MRI-GB (all techniques combined) and TRUS-GB for overall PCa detection (relative risk [RR] 0.97 [0.90-1.07]). MRI-GB had higher detection rates of clinically significant PCa (csPCa) compared with TRUS-GB (RR 1.16 [1.02-1.32]), and a lower yield of insignificant PCa (RR 0.47 [0.35-0.63]). There was a significant advantage (p = 0.02) of MRI-TB compared with COG-TB for overall PCa detection. For overall PCa detection there was no significant advantage of MRI-TB compared with FUS-TB (p=0.13), and neither for FUS-TB compared with COG-TB (p=0.11). For csPCa detection there was no significant advantage of any one technique of MRI-GB. The impact of lesion characteristics such as size and localisation could not be assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI-GB had similar overall PCa detection rates compared with TRUS-GB, increased rates of csPCa, and decreased rates of insignificant PCa. MRI-TB has a superior overall PCa detection compared with COG-TB. FUS-TB and MRI-TB appear to have similar detection rates. Head-to-head comparisons of MRI-GB techniques are limited and are needed to confirm our findings.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our review shows that magnetic resonance imaging-guided biopsy detects more clinically significant prostate cancer (PCa) and less insignificant PCa compared with systematic biopsy in men at risk for PCa.

Performance of PI-RADS version 1 versus version 2 regarding the relation with histopathological results

PURPOSE

Aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of PI-RADS version 1 (v1) and version 2 (v2) in the detection of prostate cancer (PCa).

METHODS

Multiparametric MRIs (mpMRI) of 50 consecutive patients with biopsy proven PCa, which had originally been evaluated according to PIRADS v1, were now retrospectively re-evaluated, comparing PI-RADS v1 and v2. MpMRI data were evaluated in comparison with histopathological whole-mount step-section slides. MRI examinations included T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI.

RESULTS

Overall PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger discriminative ability of tumor detection: PI-RADS v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.94-0.98) and v2 AUC 0.90 (95 % CI 0.86-0.94). For peripheral zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed a significantly larger ability of PCa discrimination: v1 AUC 0.97 (95 % CI 0.95-0.99) and v2 AUC 0.92 (95 % CI 0.88-0.96). For transition zone lesions, PI-RADS v1 showed more discrimination: v1 AUC 0.96 (95 % CI 0.92-1.00) and v2 0.90 (95 % CI 0.83-0.97), but the difference was not significant. PI-RADS v2 resulted in significantly more false negative results (3 % in v1, 14 % in v2) and a comparable number of true positive results (82 % in v1, 80 % in v2).

CONCLUSION

PI-RADS v2 uses a simplified approach, but shows a lower diagnostic accuracy. This could lead to a higher rate of false negative results with the risk of missing tumors within low PI-RADS score levels. Therefore, its use cannot be recommended unconditionally, and further improvement should be considered.

Elastic Versus Rigid Image Registration in Magnetic Resonance Imaging-transrectal Ultrasound Fusion Prostate Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CONTEXT

The main difference between the available magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound (MRI-TRUS) fusion platforms for prostate biopsy is the method of image registration being either rigid or elastic. As elastic registration compensates for possible deformation caused by the introduction of an ultrasound probe for example, it is expected that it would perform better than rigid registration.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis is to compare rigid with elastic registration by calculating the detection odds ratio (OR) for both subgroups. The detection OR is defined as the ratio of the odds of detecting clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) by MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy compared with systematic TRUS biopsy. Secondary objectives were the OR for any PCa and the OR after pooling both registration techniques.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The electronic databases PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were systematically searched for relevant studies according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Statement. Studies comparing MRI-TRUS fusion and systematic TRUS-guided biopsies in the same patient were included. The quality assessment of included studies was performed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies version 2.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Eleven papers describing elastic and 10 describing rigid registration were included. Meta-analysis showed an OR of csPCa for elastic and rigid registration of 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.73, p<0.0001) and 1.40 (95% CI: 1.13-1.75, p=0.002), respectively. No significant difference was seen between the subgroups (p=0.83). Pooling subgroups resulted in an OR of 1.43 (95% CI: 1.25-1.63, p<0.00001).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference was identified between rigid and elastic registration for MRI-TRUS fusion-guided biopsy in the detection of csPCa; however, both techniques detected more csPCa than TRUS-guided biopsy alone.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We did not identify any significant differences in prostate cancer detection between two distinct magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion systems which vary in their method of compensating for prostate deformation.

Evaluation of an Automated Analysis Tool for Prostate Cancer Prediction Using Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of an automated analysis tool for the assessment of prostate cancer based on multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate.

METHODS

A fully automated analysis tool was used for a retrospective analysis of mpMRI sets (T2-weighted, T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted sequences). The software provided a malignancy prediction value for each image pixel, defined as Malignancy Attention Index (MAI) that can be depicted as a colour map overlay on the original images. The malignancy maps were compared to histopathology derived from a combination of MRI-targeted and systematic transperineal MRI/TRUS-fusion biopsies.

RESULTS

In total, mpMRI data of 45 patients were evaluated. With a sensitivity of 85.7% (with 95% CI of 65.4-95.0), a specificity of 87.5% (with 95% CI of 69.0-95.7) and a diagnostic accuracy of 86.7% (with 95% CI of 73.8-93.8) for detection of prostate cancer, the automated analysis results corresponded well with the reported diagnostic accuracies by human readers based on the PI-RADS system in the current literature.

CONCLUSION

The study revealed comparable diagnostic accuracies for the detection of prostate cancer of a user-independent MAI-based automated analysis tool and PI-RADS-scoring-based human reader analysis of mpMRI. Thus, the analysis tool could serve as a detection support system for less experienced readers. The results of the study also suggest the potential of MAI-based analysis for advanced lesion assessments, such as cancer extent and staging prediction.

Current practice and access to prostate MR imaging in France

PURPOSE

To obtain an overview of the degree of discrepancy between current clinical practice of prostate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in France and recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A brief survey was sent to 1229 members of the French society of urology in order to identify their indications of prostate MRI and its impact on patient management. The urologists were asked to answer several questions regarding age, practice modality, prostate MRI examinations (technique, indication before first biopsy, second biopsy, cancer staging, active surveillance, recurrence, focal therapy) and quality of reports.

RESULTS

A total of 445 responses were received (participation rate of 36%). The mean delay for obtaining an appointment for prostate MRI ranged between 15-30 days in 54%. Fifty-four percent of MRI reports contained a PIRADS score and 23% a Likert score. The indications of multiparametric-MRI were tumor detection/location prior to repeat biopsy (90%), cancer staging (85%), management of patients under active surveillance (85%), selection of candidates to focal therapy (63%), tumor detection/location in biopsy naïve patients (53%), detection of local recurrence after radical (51%). Only 119 urologists (28.6%) had access to image fusion (MRI and transrectal ultrasound) and 351 (85.4%) used cognitive fusion. Mostly, targeted biopsies are done by urologists alone (nearly 80%), a very few are done by radiologists (8%) or by the two of them in collaboration (12%).

CONCLUSION

The majority of urologists consider that prostate MRI is essential for the management of patients with prostate cancer. Practices are ahead of recommendations particularly before the first biopsy and in active surveillance.

Questions and answers on prostate multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging: Everything a urologist should know

CONTEXT

For many years, the detection of prostate cancer (PC) and the management of its therapy have been based primarily on prostate-specific antigen, rectal examination and prostate biopsy. However, these parameters have known limitations. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) for prostate cancer has undergone extensive development in recent years, providing morphological and functional information. The aim of this study is to present an updated review of the scope and limitations of prostatic mpMRI for PC, in the framework of a multidisciplinary vision.

ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE

We conducted a literature review (in PubMed) of articles referencing "mpMRI/staging/ PC/detection/active surveillance/therapy planning/post-therapy". We included 4 systematic reviews and other articles published in high impact-factor journals within the field of radiology and urology.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

MpMRI provides morphological and functional information concerning PC. This information is integrated into the Prostate Imaging Report and Date System, classifying the probability of clinically significant carcinoma on a scale from 1 to 5. The usefulness of mpMRI is currently being established for patients with high prostate-specific antigen levels and prior negative prostate biopsy; tumour staging in selected cases; assessment of patients who are candidates for active surveillance; the planning of focal treatments; and the assessment of tumour persistence and recurrence.

CONCLUSIONS

MpMRI currently fills a relevant role in the diagnosis and therapeutic decision-making of PC. More widespread use of the technique requires a cost/benefit analysis.

Prostate Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Targeted Biopsy in Patients with a Prior Negative Biopsy: A Consensus Statement by AUA and SAR

PURPOSE

After an initial negative biopsy there is an ongoing need for strategies to improve patient selection for repeat biopsy as well as the diagnostic yield from repeat biopsies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

As a collaborative initiative of the AUA (American Urological Association) and SAR (Society of Abdominal Radiology) Prostate Cancer Disease Focused Panel, an expert panel of urologists and radiologists conducted a literature review and formed consensus statements regarding the role of prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy in patients with a negative biopsy, which are summarized in this review.

RESULTS

The panel recognizes that many options exist for men with a previously negative biopsy. If a biopsy is recommended, prostate magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores appear to facilitate the detection of clinically significant disease over standardized repeat biopsy. Thus, when high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging is available, it should be strongly considered for any patient with a prior negative biopsy who has persistent clinical suspicion for prostate cancer and who is under evaluation for a possible repeat biopsy. The decision of whether to perform magnetic resonance imaging in this setting must also take into account the results of any other biomarkers and the cost of the examination, as well as the availability of high quality prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretation. If magnetic resonance imaging is done, it should be performed, interpreted and reported in accordance with PI-RADS version 2 (v2) guidelines. Experience of the reporting radiologist and biopsy operator are required to achieve optimal results and practices integrating prostate magnetic resonance imaging into patient care are advised to implement quality assurance programs to monitor targeted biopsy results.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients receiving a PI-RADS assessment category of 3 to 5 warrant repeat biopsy with image guided targeting. While transrectal ultrasound guided magnetic resonance imaging fusion or in-bore magnetic resonance imaging targeting may be valuable for more reliable targeting, especially for lesions that are small or in difficult locations, in the absence of such targeting technologies cognitive (visual) targeting remains a reasonable approach in skilled hands. At least 2 targeted cores should be obtained from each magnetic resonance imaging defined target. Given the number of studies showing a proportion of missed clinically significant cancers by magnetic resonance imaging targeted cores, a case specific decision must be made whether to also perform concurrent systematic sampling. However, performing solely targeted biopsy should only be considered once quality assurance efforts have validated the performance of prostate magnetic resonance imaging interpretations with results consistent with the published literature. In patients with negative or low suspicion magnetic resonance imaging (PI-RADS assessment category of 1 or 2, respectively), other ancillary markers (ie PSA, PSAD, PSAV, PCA3, PHI, 4K) may be of value in identifying patients warranting repeat systematic biopsy, although further data are needed on this topic. If a repeat biopsy is deferred on the basis of magnetic resonance imaging findings, then continued clinical and laboratory followup is advised and consideration should be given to incorporating repeat magnetic resonance imaging in this diagnostic surveillance regimen.

Prostate Cancer Detection Rate with Koelis Fusion Biopsies versus Cognitive Biopsies: A Comparative Study

OBJECTIVE

Targeted fusion biopsies have led to an improved prostate cancer (PCa) detection rate (CDR). Our aim was to assess if device-assisted fusion biopsies are superior to cognitive ones in terms of CDR. The association between multiparametric MRI parameters and PCa was also evaluated.

METHODS

We retrospectively enrolled 50 patients who underwent transrectal biopsy with elastic fusion (Koelis; group KB, n = 25) or cognitive approach (group CB, n = 25). Targeted biopsies were done on targets, while a variable number of random biopsies were performed depending on the clinical case.

RESULTS

The groups did not significantly differ in terms of age, prostate-specific antigen, prostate volume and previous biopsies. Mean number of random cores was significantly inferior in KB group (8.4 vs. 12.1) and mean number of targeted biopsies was significantly higher (3.6 vs. 2.6). CDR was higher in fusion biopsies (64 vs. 40%), with the gap becoming significant when considering CDR of MRI targets only (59 vs. 27%). The difference was marked for lesions ≤10 mm, where CDR was 52% in KB against 21% in CB group.

CONCLUSIONS

According to our study, elastic fusion biopsies performed with Koelis achieve an increased per-patient and per-lesion CDR as compared to cognitive biopsies, especially in the case of lesions ≤10 mm.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to investigate the use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MPMRI) followed by targeted biopsy in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer (CSPC) and to compare it with transrectal ultrasound-guided (TRUS-guided) systematic biopsy in patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are either biopsy-naive or who have a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy. MEDLINE, PubMed and EMBASE (1997 to April 2014), the Cochrane Library and six relevant conferences were searched to find eligible studies. Search terms indicative of 'prostate cancer' and 'magnetic resonance imaging' with their alternatives were used. Twelve systematic reviews, 52 full texts and 28 abstracts met the preplanned study selection criteria; data from 15 articles were extracted. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who were biopsy-naive, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy could detect 2-13% of CSPC patients whom TRUS-guided systematic biopsy missed; TRUS-guided systematic biopsy could detect 0-7% of CSPC patients whom MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy missed. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who had a previous negative TRUS-guided biopsy, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy detected more CSPC patients than repeated TRUS-guided systematic biopsy in all four studies, with a total of 516 patients, but only one study reached a statistically significant difference. In patients with an elevated risk of prostate cancer who are biopsy-naive, there is insufficient evidence for MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy to be considered the standard of care. In patients who had a prior negative TRUS-guided systematic biopsy and show a growing risk of having CSPC, MPMRI followed by targeted biopsy may be helpful to detect more CSPC cases as opposed to a repeat TRUS-guided systematic biopsy.

Assessment of the Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Guided Prostate Biopsy against a Combined Targeted Plus Systematic Biopsy Approach Using 24-Core Transperineal Template Saturation Mapping Prostate Biopsy

Objective. To compare the performance of multiparametric resonance imaging/ultrasound fusion targeted biopsy (MRI/US-TBx) to a combined biopsy strategy (MRI/US-TBx plus 24-core transperineal template saturation mapping biopsy (TTMB)). Methods. Between May 2012 and October 2015, all patients undergoing MRI/US-TBx at our institution were included for analysis. Patients underwent MRI/US-TBx of suspicious lesions detected on multiparametric MRI +/− simultaneous TTMB. Subgroup analysis was performed on patients undergoing simultaneous MRI/US-TBx + TTMB. Primary outcome was PCa detection. Significant PCa was defined as ≥Gleason score (GS) 3 + 4 = 7 PCa. McNemar's test was used to compare detection rates between MRI/US-TBx and the combined biopsy strategy. Results. 148 patients underwent MRI/US-TBx and 80 patients underwent MRI/US-TBx + TTMB. In the MRI/US-TBx versus combined biopsy strategy subgroup analysis (n = 80), there were 55 PCa and 38 significant PCa. The detection rate for the combined biopsy strategy versus MRI/US-TBx for significant PCa was 49% versus 40% (p = 0.02) and for insignificant PCa was 20% versus 10% (p = 0.04), respectively. Eleven cases (14%) of significant PCa were detected exclusively on MRI/US-TBx and 7 cases (8.7%) of significant PCa were detected exclusively on TTMB. Conclusions. A combined biopsy approach (MRI/US-TBx + TTMB) detects more significant PCa than MRI/US-TBx alone; however, it will double the detection rate of insignificant PCa.

Differentiation of prostatitis and prostate cancer using the Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS)

PURPOSE

To determine if prostate cancer (PCa) and prostatitis can be differentiated by using PI-RADS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3T MR images of 68 patients with 85 cancer suspicious lesions were analyzed. The findings were correlated with histopathology. T2w imaging (T2WI), diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), dynamic contrast enhancement (DCE), and MR-Spectroscopy (MRS) were acquired. Every lesion was given a single PI-RADS score for each parameter, as well as a sum score and a PI-RADS v2 score. Furthermore, T2-morphology, ADC-value, perfusion type, citrate/choline-level, and localization were evaluated.

RESULTS

44 of 85 lesions showed PCa (51.8%), 21 chronic prostatitis (24.7%), and 20 other benign tissue such as hyperplasia or fibromuscular tissue (23.5%). The single PI-RADS score for T2WI, DWI, DCE, as well as the aggregated score including and not including MRS, and the PI-RADS v2-score were all significantly higher for PCa than for prostatitis or other tissue (p<0.001). The single PI-RADS score for MRS and the PI-RADS sum score including MRS were significantly higher for prostatitis than for other tissue (p=0.029 and p=0.020), whereas the other parameters were not different. Prostatitis usually presented borderline pathological PI-RADS scores, showed restricted diffusion with ADC≥900mm(2)/s in 100% of cases, was more often indistinctly hypointense on T2WI (66.7%), and localized in the transitional zone (57.1%). An ADC≥900mm(2)/s achieved the highest predictive value for prostatitis (AUC=0.859).

CONCLUSION

Prostatitis can be differentiated from PCa using PI-RADS, since all available parameters are more distinct in cases of cancer. However, there is significant overlap between prostatitis and other benign findings, thus PI-RADS is only suitable to a limited extent for the primary assessment of prostatitis. Restricted diffusion with ADC≥900mm(2)/s is believed to be a good indicator for prostatitis. MRS can help to distinguish between prostatitis and other tissue.

Poor standard mp-MRI and routine biopsy fail to precisely predict intraprostatic tumor localization

PURPOSE

To evaluate the localization accuracy of routinely performed preoperative multiparametric MRI (mp-MRI), not being assessed according to PI-RADS criteria.

METHODS

One hundred and six patients underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy (January 2011-June 2012) with preoperative MRI. Intraprostatic tumor localization suggested by mp-MRI was correlated to both biopsy and histopathology results.

RESULTS

Sensitivity and specificity were as low as 25-62 and 60-94 %, respectively. Neither higher field force nor the use of an endorectal coil could enhance accuracy. There was no statistically significant concordance in any sextant. The mean number of correctly identified sextants was between 3.11 and 4.00 and, thus, insignificantly above the value of 3 that one would obtain by tossing the coin. For transrectal biopsies, sensitivity and specificity of tumor localization were 52-63 and 46-80 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Neither routinely performed "non-PI-RADS" MRI nor transrectal biopsy can accurately localize prostate cancer. Focal therapy concepts rely on a precise intraprostatic tumor detection and therefore inevitably require PI-RADS assessment by radiologists with genitourinary specialization. Regarding patient discomfort and costs, "non-PI-RADS" MRIs of the prostate are not justified.

Role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in early detection of prostate cancer

Abstract

Most prostate cancers (PC) are currently found on the basis of an elevated PSA, although this biomarker has only moderate accuracy. Histological confirmation is traditionally obtained by random transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy, but this approach may underestimate PC. It is generally accepted that a clinically significant PC requires treatment, but in case of an non-significant PC, deferment of treatment and inclusion in an active surveillance program is a valid option. The implementation of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) into a screening program may reduce the risk of overdetection of non-significant PC and improve the early detection of clinically significant PC. A mpMRI consists of T2-weighted images supplemented with diffusion-weighted imaging, dynamic contrast enhanced imaging, and/or magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging and is preferably performed and reported according to the uniform quality standards of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS). International guidelines currently recommend mpMRI in patients with persistently rising PSA and previous negative biopsies, but mpMRI may also be used before first biopsy to improve the biopsy yield by targeting suspicious lesions or to assist in the selection of low-risk patients in whom consideration could be given for surveillance.

Teaching Points

• MpMRI may be used to detect or exclude significant prostate cancer.

• MpMRI can guide targeted rebiopsy in patients with previous negative biopsies.

• In patients with negative mpMRI consideration could be given for surveillance.

• MpMRI may add valuable information for the optimal treatment selection.

The current and future role of magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer detection and management

Purpose

Accurate detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (PC) and correct risk attribution are essential to individually counsel men with PC. Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) facilitates correct localization of index lesions within the prostate and MRI-targeted prostate biopsy (TPB) helps to avoid the shortcomings of conventional biopsy such as false-negative results or underdiagnosis of aggressive PC. In this review we summarize the different sequences of mpMRI, characterize the possibilities of incorporating MRI in the biopsy workflow and outline the performance of targeted and systematic cores in significant cancer detection. Furthermore, we outline the potential of MRI in patients undergoing active surveillance (AS) and in the pre-operative setting.

Materials and methods

An electronic MEDLINE/PubMed search up to February 2015 was performed. English language articles were reviewed for inclusion ability and data were extracted, analyzed and summarized.

Results

Targeted biopsies significantly outperform conventional systematic biopsies in the detection of significant PC and are not inferior when compared to transperineal saturation biopsies. MpMRI can detect index lesions in app. 90% of cases as compared to prostatectomy specimen. The diagnostic performance of biparametric MRI (T2w + DWI) is not inferior to mpMRI, offering options to diminish cost- and time-consumption. Since app 10% of significant lesions are still MRI-invisible, systematic cores seem to be necessary. In-bore biopsy and MRI/TRUS-fusion-guided biopsy tend to be superior techniques compared to cognitive fusion. In AS, mpMRI avoids underdetection of significant PC and confirms low-risk disease accurately. In higher-risk disease, pre-surgical MRI can change the clinically-based surgical plan in up to a third of cases.

Conclusions

mpMRI and targeted biopsies are able to detect significant PC accurately and mitigate insignificant PC detection. As long as the negative predictive value (NPV) is still imperfect, systematic cores should not be omitted for optimal staging of disease. The potential to correctly classify aggressiveness of disease in AS patients and to guide and plan prostatectomy is evolving.

Computer-extracted Features Can Distinguish Noncancerous Confounding Disease from Prostatic Adenocarcinoma at Multiparametric MR Imaging

PURPOSE

To determine the best features to discriminate prostate cancer from benign disease and its relationship to benign disease class and cancer grade.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The institutional review board approved this study and waived the need for informed consent. A retrospective cohort of 70 patients (age range, 48-70 years; median, 62 years), all of whom were scheduled to undergo radical prostatectomy and underwent preoperative 3-T multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, including T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic contrast material-enhanced imaging, were included. The digitized prostatectomy slides were annotated for cancer and noncancerous disease and coregistered to MR imaging with an interactive deformable coregistration scheme. Computer-identified features for each of the noncancerous disease categories (eg, benign prostatic hyperplasia [BPH], prostatic intraepithelial neoplasia [PIN], inflammation, and atrophy) and prostate cancer were extracted. Feature selection was performed to identify the features with the highest discriminatory power. The performance of these five features was evaluated by using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

High-b-value diffusion-weighted images were more discriminative in distinguishing BPH from prostate cancer than apparent diffusion coefficient, which was most suitable for distinguishing PIN from prostate cancer. The focal appearance of lesions on dynamic contrast-enhanced images may help discriminate atrophy and inflammation from cancer. Which imaging features are discriminative for different benign lesions is influenced by cancer grade. The apparent diffusion coefficient appeared to be the most discriminative feature in identifying high-grade cancer. Classification results showed increased performance by taking into account specific benign types (AUC = 0.70) compared with grouping all noncancerous findings together (AUC = 0.62).

CONCLUSION

The best features with which to discriminate prostate cancer from noncancerous benign disease depend on the type of benign disease and cancer grade. Use of the best features may result in better diagnostic performance.

Predicting Pathological Features at Radical Prostatectomy in Patients with Prostate Cancer Eligible for Active Surveillance by Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic performance of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) and Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PIRADS) score in predicting pathologic features in a cohort of patients eligible for active surveillance who underwent radical prostatectomy.

METHODS

A total of 223 patients who fulfilled the criteria for "Prostate Cancer Research International: Active Surveillance", were included. Mp-1.5 Tesla MRI examination staging with endorectal coil was performed at least 6-8 weeks after TRUS-guided biopsy. In all patients, the likelihood of the presence of cancer was assigned using PIRADS score between 1 and 5. Outcomes of interest were: Gleason score upgrading, extra capsular extension (ECE), unfavorable prognosis (occurrence of both upgrading and ECE), large tumor volume (≥ 0.5 ml), and seminal vesicle invasion (SVI). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and Decision Curve Analyses (DCA) were performed for models with and without inclusion of PIRADS score.

RESULTS

Multivariate analysis demonstrated the association of PIRADS score with upgrading (P < 0.0001), ECE (P < 0.0001), unfavorable prognosis (P < 0.0001), and large tumor volume (P = 0.002). ROC curves and DCA showed that models including PIRADS score resulted in greater net benefit for almost all the outcomes of interest, with the only exception of SVI.

CONCLUSIONS

mpMRI and PIRADS scoring are feasible tools in clinical setting and could be used as decision-support systems for a more accurate selection of patients eligible for AS.

Prebiopsy MRI and MRI-ultrasound Fusion-targeted Prostate Biopsy in Men With Previous Negative Biopsies: Impact on Repeat Biopsy Strategies

OBJECTIVE

To report outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-targeted biopsy (MRF-TB) and 12-core systematic biopsy (SB) over a 26-month period in men with prior negative prostate biopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between June 2012 and August 2014, 210 men presenting to our institution for prostate biopsy with ≥1 prior negative biopsy underwent multiparametric MRI followed by MRF-TB and SB and were entered into a prospective database. Clinical characteristics, maximum mpMRI suspicion scores (mSS), and biopsy results were queried from the database, and the detection rates of Gleason ≥7 prostate cancer (PCa) and overall PCa were compared between biopsy techniques using McNemar's test.

RESULTS

Forty seven (29%) of 161 men meeting inclusion criteria (mean age, 65 ± 8 years; mean prostate-specific antigen, 8.9 ± 8.9) were found to have PCa. MRF-TB and SB had overall cancer detection rates (CDRs) of 21.7% and 18.6% (P = .36), respectively, and CDR for Gleason score (GS) ≥7 disease of 14.9% and 9.3% (P = .02), respectively. Of 26 men with GS ≥7 disease, MRF-TB detected 24 (92.3%) whereas SB detected 15 (57.7%; P < .01). Using UCSF-CAPRA criteria, only 1 man was restratified from low risk to higher risk based on SB results compared to MRF-TB alone. Among men with mSS <4, 72% of detected cancers were low risk by UCSF-CAPRA criteria.

CONCLUSION

In men with previous negative biopsies and persistent suspicion of PCa, SB contributes little to the detection of GS ≥7 disease by MRF-TB, and avoidance of SB bears consideration. Based on the low likelihood of detecting GS ≥7 cancer and overall low-risk features of PCa in men with mSS <4, limiting biopsy to men with mSS ≥4 warrants further investigation.

Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Predicts Postoperative Pathology but Misses Aggressive Prostate Cancers as Assessed by Cell Cycle Progression Score

PURPOSE

We identified prognostic biomarkers in prostate cancer by a radiogenomics strategy that integrates gene expression using the cell cycle progression score and medical images.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We obtained institutional review board approval and written informed consent from 106 men with prostate cancer, including 60% at low risk, who underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging before radical prostatectomy was done and a cell cycle progression score was determined. The correlation between the results of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and Gleason grade or cell cycle progression score was assessed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Patients with primary Gleason grade greater than 3 had a longer median maximal tumor diameter (13 vs 10 mm) and a lower median apparent diffusion coefficient (0.745 vs 0.88×10(-3) mm2 per second, each p=0.0001) than those with primary Gleason grade 3 or less. Maximal diameter 10 mm or greater (OR 4.9, 95% CI 1.7 to 14.0, p=0.0012) and apparent diffusion coefficient 0.80×10(-3) mm2 per second or less (OR 7.5, 95% CI 3.0 to 18.7, p<0.0001) were significantly associated with primary Gleason grade greater than 3. The combined measure of maximal diameter less than 10 mm and apparent diffusion coefficient greater than 0.80×10(-3) mm2 per second identified only index lesions harboring primary Gleason grade 3. However, 7 of those lesions showed a molecular pattern of high risk lethal prostate cancer (cell cycle progression score greater than 0).

CONCLUSIONS

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging is able to predict low and high risk Gleason scores in the tumor. However, the cell cycle progression score did not completely match the imaging result. These findings suggest that management of early stages prostate cancer could strongly benefit by performing magnetic resonance imaging targeted biopsy coupled with molecular analysis.

Automated prostate cancer detection via comprehensive multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging texture feature models

BACKGROUND

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death in North America. Auto-detection of prostate cancer can play a major role in early detection of prostate cancer, which has a significant impact on patient survival rates. While multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (MP-MRI) has shown promise in diagnosis of prostate cancer, the existing auto-detection algorithms do not take advantage of abundance of data available in MP-MRI to improve detection accuracy. The goal of this research was to design a radiomics-based auto-detection method for prostate cancer via utilizing MP-MRI data.

METHODS

In this work, we present new MP-MRI texture feature models for radiomics-driven detection of prostate cancer. In addition to commonly used non-invasive imaging sequences in conventional MP-MRI, namely T2-weighted MRI (T2w) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), our proposed MP-MRI texture feature models incorporate computed high-b DWI (CHB-DWI) and a new diffusion imaging modality called correlated diffusion imaging (CDI). Moreover, the proposed texture feature models incorporate features from individual b-value images. A comprehensive set of texture features was calculated for both the conventional MP-MRI and new MP-MRI texture feature models. We performed feature selection analysis for each individual modality and then combined best features from each modality to construct the optimized texture feature models.

RESULTS

The performance of the proposed MP-MRI texture feature models was evaluated via leave-one-patient-out cross-validation using a support vector machine (SVM) classifier trained on 40,975 cancerous and healthy tissue samples obtained from real clinical MP-MRI datasets. The proposed MP-MRI texture feature models outperformed the conventional model (i.e., T2w+DWI) with regard to cancer detection accuracy.

CONCLUSIONS

Comprehensive texture feature models were developed for improved radiomics-driven detection of prostate cancer using MP-MRI. Using a comprehensive set of texture features and a feature selection method, optimal texture feature models were constructed that improved the prostate cancer auto-detection significantly compared to conventional MP-MRI texture feature models.

Prospective randomized trial comparing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided in-bore biopsy to MRI-ultrasound fusion and transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy in patients with prior negative biopsies

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of prostate cancers (PCas) are missed by conventional transrectal ultrasound-guided biopsy (TRUS-GB). It remains unclear whether the combined approach using targeted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-ultrasound fusion-guided biopsy (FUS-GB) and systematic TRUS-GB is superior to targeted MRI-guided in-bore biopsy (IB-GB) for PCa detection.

OBJECTIVE

To compare PCa detection between IB-GB alone and FUS-GB + TRUS-GB in patients with at least one negative TRUS-GB and prostate-specific antigen ≥4 ng/ml.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients were prospectively randomized after multiparametric prostate MRI to IB-GB (arm A) or FUS-GB + TRUS-GB (arm B) from November 2011 to July 2014.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The study was powered at 80% to demonstrate an overall PCa detection rate of ≥60% in arm B compared to 40% in arm A. Secondary endpoints were the distribution of highest Gleason scores, the rate of detection of significant PCa (Gleason ≥7), the number of biopsy cores to detect one (significant) PCa, the positivity rate for biopsy cores, and tumor involvement per biopsy core.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

The study was halted after interim analysis because the primary endpoint was not met. The trial enrolled 267 patients, of whom 210 were analyzed (106 randomized to arm A and 104 to arm B). PCa detection was 37% in arm A and 39% in arm B (95% confidence interval for difference, -16% to 11%; p=0.7). Detection rates for significant PCa (29% vs 32%; p=0.7) and the highest percentage tumor involvement per biopsy core (48% vs 42%; p=0.4) were similar between the arms. The mean number of cores was 5.6 versus 17 (p<0.001). A limitation is the limited number of patients because of early cessation of accrual.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial failed to identify an important improvement in detection rate for the combined biopsy approach over MRI-targeted biopsy alone. A prospective comparison between MRI-targeted biopsy alone and systematic TRUS-GB is justified.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our randomized study showed similar prostate cancer detection rates between targeted prostate biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging and the combination of targeted biopsy and systematic transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy. An important improvement in detection rates using the combined biopsy approach can be excluded.

Prostate Cancer: Interobserver Agreement and Accuracy with the Revised Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System at Multiparametric MR Imaging

PURPOSE

To evaluate accuracy and interobserver variability with the use of the Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) version 2.0 for detection of prostate cancer at multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in a biopsy-naïve patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the local ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained from all patients for use of their imaging and histopathologic data in future research studies. In 101 biopsy-naïve patients with elevated prostate-specific antigen levels who underwent multiparametric MR imaging of the prostate and subsequent transrectal ultrasonography (US)-MR imaging fusion-guided biopsy, suspicious lesions detected at multiparametric MR imaging were scored by five readers who were blinded to pathologic results by using to the newly revised PI-RADS and the scoring system developed in-house. Interobserver agreement was evaluated by using κ statistics, and the correlation of pathologic results with each of the two scoring systems was evaluated by using the Kendall τ correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

Specimens of 162 lesions in 94 patients were sampled by means of transrectal US-MR imaging fusion biopsy. Results for 87 (54%) lesions were positive for prostate cancer. Kendall τ values with the PI-RADS and the in-house-developed scoring system, respectively, at T2-weighted MR imaging in the peripheral zone were 0.51 and 0.17 and in the transitional zone, 0.45 and -0.11; at diffusion-weighted MR imaging, 0.42 and 0.28; at dynamic contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, 0.23 and 0.24, and overall suspicion scores were 0.42 and 0.49. Median κ scores among all possible pairs of readers for PI-RADS and the in-house-developed scoring system, respectively, for T2-weighted MR images in the peripheral zone were 0.47 and 0.15; transitional zone, 0.37 and 0.07; diffusion-weighted MR imaging, 0.41 and 0.57; dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, 0.48 and 0.41; and overall suspicion scores, 0.46 and 0.55.

CONCLUSION

Use of the revised PI-RADS provides moderately reproducible MR imaging scores for detection of clinically relevant disease.

Repeat Targeted Prostate Biopsy under Guidance of Multiparametric MRI-Correlated Real-Time Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Patients with Previous Negative Biopsy and Elevated Prostate-Specific Antigen: A Prospective Study

OBJECTIVES

To prospectively determine whether multi-parametric MRI (mpMRI) - contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) correlated, imaging-guided target biopsy (TB) method could improve the detection of prostate cancer in re-biopsy setting of patients with prior negative biopsy.

METHODS

From 2012 to 2014, a total of 42 Korean men with a negative result from previous systematic biopsy (SB) and elevated prostate-specific antigen underwent 3T mpMRI and real-time CEUS guided TB. Target lesions were determined by fusion of mpMRI and CEUS. Subsequently, 12-core SB was performed by a different radiologist. We compared core-based cancer detection rates (CaDR) using the generalized linear mixed model (GLIMMIX) for each biopsy method.

RESULTS

Core-based CaDR was higher in TB (17.92%, 38 of 212 cores) than in SB (6.15%, 31 of 504 cores) (p < 0.0001; GLIMMIX). In the cancer-positive TB cores, CaDR with suspicious lesions by mpMRI was higher than that by CEUS (86.8% vs. 60.5%, p= 0.02; paired t-test) and concordant rate between mpMRI and CEUS was significantly different with discordant rate (48% vs. 52%, p=0.04; McNemar's test).

CONCLUSION

The mpMRI-CEUS correlated TB technique for the repeat prostate biopsy of patients with prior negative biopsy can improve CaDR based on the number of cores taken.

Clinical evaluation of a computer-aided diagnosis system for determining cancer aggressiveness in prostate MRI

Objectives

To investigate the added value of computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) on the diagnostic accuracy of PIRADS reporting and the assessment of cancer aggressiveness.

Methods

Multi-parametric MRI and histopathological outcome of MR-guided biopsies of a consecutive set of 130 patients were included. All cases were prospectively PIRADS reported and the reported lesions underwent CAD analysis. Logistic regression combined the CAD prediction and radiologist PIRADS score into a combination score. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and Spearman’s correlation coefficient were used to assess the diagnostic accuracy and correlation to cancer grade. Evaluation was performed for discriminating benign lesions from cancer and for discriminating indolent from aggressive lesions.

Results

In total 141 lesions (107 patients) were included for final analysis. The area-under-the-ROC-curve of the combination score was higher than for the PIRADS score of the radiologist (benign vs. cancer, 0.88 vs. 0.81, p = 0.013 and indolent vs. aggressive, 0.88 vs. 0.78, p < 0.01). The combination score correlated significantly stronger with cancer grade (0.69, p = 0.0014) than the individual CAD system or radiologist (0.54 and 0.58).

Conclusions

Combining CAD prediction and PIRADS into a combination score has the potential to improve diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, such a combination score has a strong correlation with cancer grade.

Key Points

• Computer-aided diagnosis helps radiologists discriminate benign findings from cancer in prostate MRI.

• Combining PIRADS and computer-aided diagnosis improves differentiation between indolent and aggressive cancer.

• Adding computer-aided diagnosis to PIRADS increases the correlation coefficient with respect to cancer grade.

A Randomized Controlled Trial To Assess and Compare the Outcomes of Two-core Prostate Biopsy Guided by Fused Magnetic Resonance and Transrectal Ultrasound Images and Traditional 12-core Systematic Biopsy

BACKGROUND

Prostate biopsy guided by computer-assisted fusion of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) images (MRI group) has not yet been compared with 12-core random biopsy (RB; control group) in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the rate of detection of clinically significant prostate cancer (csPCa) between the two groups.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This RCT included 175 biopsy-naïve patients with suspicion for prostate cancer, randomized to an MRI group (n=86) and a control group (n=89) between September 2011 and June 2013.

INTERVENTION

In the MRI group, two-core targeted biopsy (TB) guided by computer-assisted fusion of MRI/TRUS images of MRI-suspicious lesions was followed by 12-core RB. In the control group, both two-core TB for abnormal digital rectal examination (DRE) and/or TRUS-suspicious lesions and 12-core RB were performed. In patients with normal MRI or DRE/TRUS, only 12-core RB was performed.

OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The detection rates for any cancer and csPCa were compared between the two groups and between TB and RB.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

Detection rates for any cancer (MRI group 51/86, 59%; control group 48/89, 54%; p=0.4) and csPCa (38/86, 44% vs 44/89, 49%; p=0.5) did not significantly differ between the groups. Detection of csPCa was comparable between two-core MRI/TRUS-TB (33/86, 38%) and 12-core RB in the control group (44/89, 49%; p=0.2). In a subset analysis of patients with normal DRE, csPCa detection was similar between two-core MRI/TRUS-TB (14/66, 21%) and 12-core RB in the control group (15/60, 25%; p=0.7). Among biopsy-proven csPCas in MRI group, 87% (33/38) were detected by MRI/TRUS-TB. The definition of csPCa was only based on biopsy outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Overall csPCa detection was similar between the MRI and control groups. Two-core MRI/TRUS-TB was comparable to 12-core RB for csPCa detection.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Our randomized controlled trial revealed a similar rate of prostate cancer detection between targeted biopsy guided by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) and 12-core random biopsy. The traditional 12-core random biopsy may be replaced by two-core MRI/TRUS targeted biopsy for detection of clinically significant prostate cancer.

Current role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging in the management of prostate cancer

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the current role of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) in the management of prostate cancer (PC). The diagnosis of PC remains controversial owing to overdetection of indolent disease, which leads to overtreatment and subsequent patient harm. mp-MRI has the potential to equilibrate the imbalance between detection and treatment. The limitation of the data for analysis with this new technology is problematic, however. This issue has been compounded by a paradigm shift in clinical practice aimed at utilizing this modality, which has been rolled out in an ad hoc fashion often with commercial motivation. Despite a growing body of literature, pertinent clinical questions remain. For example, can mp-MRI be calibrated to reliably detect biologically significant disease? As with any new technology, objective evaluation of the clinical applications of mp-MRI is essential. The focus of this review was on the evaluation of mp-MRI of the prostate with respect to clinical utility.

Accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging/Ultrasound Fusion Targeted Biopsies to Diagnose Clinically Significant Prostate Cancer in Enlarged Compared to Smaller Prostates

PURPOSE

We assessed the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging/transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies to diagnose prostate cancer according to gland size.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective study was performed in 232 men with a first round biopsy, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging with a lesion, a Likert score of 2 or greater and prostate specific antigen less than 10 ng/ml. All men underwent a standard 12-core protocol plus a protocol of 2 or 3 targeted cores. Significant prostate cancer was defined as at least 1 core with a Gleason score of 7 (3 + 4) or 6 with a greater than 4 mm maximal cancer core length.

RESULTS

Mean ± SD patient age was 64 ± 6.4 years, mean prostate specific antigen was 6.65 ± 1.8 ng/ml and mean prostate volume was 40 ± 24.3 ml. The overall detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer was 44%. The detection rate of clinically significant prostate cancer by magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion guided biopsy was 77% for prostate glands less than 30 cm(3), and 61%, 47% and 34% for glands 30 to less than 38.5, 38.5 to less than 55 and 55 to 160 cm(3), respectively (p = 0.001). Differences in prostate cancer detection rates between the standard and targeted protocols were not significant for patients with a prostate volume of 40 cm(3) or less (p = 0.8). Conversely 12 patients with a prostate volume greater than 40 cm(3) had clinically significant prostate cancer using the targeted but not the standard protocol and in 3 prostate cancer was detected by the standard but not the targeted protocol (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging-transrectal ultrasound fusion biopsies increased the yield of first round prostate biopsies in patients with a prostate volume greater than 40 cm(3).

Evaluation of MRI-TRUS fusion versus cognitive registration accuracy for MRI-targeted, TRUS-guided prostate biopsy

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this article is to compare transrectal ultrasound (TRUS) biopsy accuracies of operators with different levels of prostate MRI experience using cognitive registration versus MRI-TRUS fusion to assess the preferred method of TRUS prostate biopsy for MRI-identified lesions. SUBJECTS AND METHODS; One hundred patients from a prospective prostate MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy study were reviewed to identify all patients with clinically significant prostate adenocarcinoma (PCA) detected on MRI-targeted biopsy. Twenty-five PCA tumors were incorporated into a validated TRUS prostate biopsy simulator. Three prostate biopsy experts, each with different levels of experience in prostate MRI and MRI-TRUS fusion biopsy, performed a total of 225 simulated targeted biopsies on the MRI lesions as well as regional biopsy targets. Simulated biopsies performed using cognitive registration with 2D TRUS and 3D TRUS were compared with biopsies performed under MRI-TRUS fusion.

RESULTS

Two-dimensional and 3D TRUS sampled only 48% and 45% of clinically significant PCA MRI lesions, respectively, compared with 100% with MRI-TRUS fusion. Lesion sampling accuracy did not statistically significantly vary according to operator experience or tumor volume. MRI-TRUS fusion-naïve operators showed consistent errors in targeting of the apex, midgland, and anterior targets, suggesting that there is biased error in cognitive registration. The MRI-TRUS fusion expert correctly targeted the prostate apex; however, his midgland and anterior mistargeting was similar to that of the less-experienced operators.

CONCLUSION

MRI-targeted TRUS-guided prostate biopsy using cognitive registration appears to be inferior to MRI-TRUS fusion, with fewer than 50% of clinically significant PCA lesions successfully sampled. No statistically significant difference in biopsy accuracy was seen according to operator experience with prostate MRI or MRI-TRUS fusion.

ProstateAnalyzer: Web-based medical application for the management of prostate cancer using multiparametric MR imaging

OBJECTIVES

In this paper, we present ProstateAnalyzer, a new web-based medical tool for prostate cancer diagnosis. ProstateAnalyzer allows the visualization and analysis of magnetic resonance images (MRI) in a single framework.

METHODS

ProstateAnalyzer recovers the data from a PACS server and displays all the associated MRI images in the same framework, usually consisting of 3D T2-weighted imaging for anatomy, dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for perfusion, diffusion-weighted imaging in the form of an apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) map and MR Spectroscopy. ProstateAnalyzer allows annotating regions of interest in a sequence and propagates them to the others.

RESULTS

From a representative case, the results using the four visualization platforms are fully detailed, showing the interaction among them. The tool has been implemented as a Java-based applet application to facilitate the portability of the tool to the different computer architectures and software and allowing the possibility to work remotely via the web.

CONCLUSION

ProstateAnalyzer enables experts to manage prostate cancer patient data set more efficiently. The tool allows delineating annotations by experts and displays all the required information for use in diagnosis. According to the current European Society of Urogenital Radiology guidelines, it also includes the PI-RADS structured reporting scheme.

Trans-rectal ultrasound visibility of prostate lesions identified by magnetic resonance imaging increases accuracy of image-fusion targeted biopsies

PURPOSE

To compare the diagnostic yield of targeted prostate biopsy using image-fusion of multi-parametric magnetic resonance (mp-MR) with real-time trans-rectal ultrasound (TRUS) for clinically significant lesions that are suspicious only on mp-MR versus lesions that are suspicious on both mp-MR and TRUS.

METHODS

Pre-biopsy MRI and TRUS were each scaled on a 3-point score: highly suspicious, likely, and unlikely for clinically significant cancer (sPCa). Using an MR-TRUS elastic image-fusion system (Koelis), a 127 consecutive patients with a suspicious clinically significant index lesion on pre-biopsy mp-MR underwent systematic biopsies and MR/US-fusion targeted biopsies (01/2010-09/2013). Biopsy histological outcomes were retrospectively compared with MR suspicion level and TRUS-visibility of the MR-suspicious lesion. sPCa was defined as biopsy Gleason score ≥7 and/or maximum cancer core length ≥5 mm.

RESULTS

Targeted biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies in overall cancer detection rate (61 vs. 41 %; p = 0.007), sPCa detection rate (43 vs. 23 %; p = 0.0013), cancer core length (7.5 vs. 3.9 mm; p = 0.0002), and cancer rate per core (56 vs. 12 %; p < 0.0001), respectively. Highly suspicious lesions on mp-MR correlated with higher positive biopsy rate (p < 0.0001), higher Gleason score (p = 0.018), and greater cancer core length (p < 0.0001). Highly suspicious lesions on TRUS in corresponding to MR-suspicious lesion had a higher biopsy yield (p < 0.0001) and higher sPCa detection rate (p < 0.0001). Since majority of MR-suspicious lesions were also suspicious on TRUS, TRUS-visibility allowed selection of the specific MR-visible lesion which should be targeted from among the multiple TRUS suspicious lesions in each prostate.

CONCLUSIONS

MR-TRUS fusion-image-guided biopsies outperformed systematic biopsies. TRUS-visibility of a MR-suspicious lesion facilitates image-guided biopsies, resulting in higher detection of significant cancer.